Phool Singh and Another vs State of M.P.

T.K. Kaushal, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 11/08/1996 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Chhatarpur in Special Case No. 121/1994, convicted and sentenced the appellants as below:-

Conviction u/s

Sentence

447 IPC

Fine of Rs. 200/-each

323 IPC

6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- each

3(1)(4) SC/ST Act

1 year R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- each

3(1)(10) SC/ST Act

6 months R.I. and fine of Rs. 500/- each

Facts of the case in short are that on 11/09/1994 at about 5.00 pm appellants forceably entered in the field owned, possessed and cultivated by Gilla (PW-2) and assaulted with him lathi. In this incident Gilla (PW-2) sustained 7 injuries on his person. Appellants belonged to caste ''Yadav'' and Gilla (PW-2) belonged to caste "Chamar". Gilla (PW-2) lodged FIR Ex. P-2 at police station Chandla, District-Chhatarpur. A case at Crime No. 94/1994 u/s 323/34, 447 IPC along with u/s 3(1)(4)/3(1)(10) of The Scheduled Castes & the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short SC/ST Act) was registered against the appellants. Gilla (PW-2) was sent for his medical examination to Public Health Centre, Chandla. Dr. R.C. Malara (PW-7) examined injuries of Gilla (PW-2) and found following injuries: -

(i) Contusion 2X2 cm on left side of the head.

(ii) Contusion 4.5X4 cm on left forearm.

(iii) Abrasion 2X2 cm on left forearm.

(iv) Contusion 2X2 cm on palm of left hand.

(v) Contusion 3X2 cm on right forearm.

(vi) Contusion 8X2 cm on right side of chest.

(vii) Contusion 4X2 cm on right knee.

During investigation police prepared spot map Ex. P-3 and Patwari also prepared map and submitted a report. After completing investigation, police Chandla submitted a charge sheet against the appellants in the concerned court.

Trial court framed charges u/s 447, 323/34 IPC and u/s 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act. Appellants abjured guilt. Defence of the appellant was that of false implication on the basis of property dispute. In support of the allegations statements of Rambabu (PW-1), Gilla, injured (PW-2), Bucha (PW-3), Shivlal (PW-4), Siyaram (PW-5), Kripal, son of injured (PW-6), Dr. R.C. Malara (PW-7), Rameshwar Tiwari, ASI (PW-8) and Shyamlal, son of injured (PW-9) were recorded.

Appreciating the aforesaid evidence, trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants as above.

This appeal has been preferred by the appellants on the grounds that appreciation of evidence is not proper. No evidence is available on record to prove the caste of the complainant and the accused persons. No independent corroboration to the testimony of witness is available on record. Conviction is based on doubtful and insufficient evidence. Conviction is bad in law and sentence is harsh. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer supported the findings of conviction and sentence both.

On careful perusal of evidence of Gilla (PW-2). it is revealed that appellants reached on the field, which he was cultivating for about more than 10 years. Appellants started abusing him and assaulted him thereby PW-2 sustained 7 injuries on his person. Thereafter, appellants ran away from the spot. In his entire statement nothing has been stated to the effect that abuses were hurled on the basis of caste. There is a contradiction in his statement regarding his dis-possession from the field. In police statement Ex. D-1 Gilla stated to have been dispossessed by the appellants wherein in the court statement this fact has been denied. Meaning thereby there is no evidence to show that a member of SC/ST was dispossessed from the field by the appellants. Nothing has come on record to show that appellants have acquired or cultivated the land owned or possessed by Gilla (PW-2).

Similarly, nothing has come on record to show that Gilla (PW-2) was intimated or humiliated as a member of SC/ST Rather it appears to be property dispute between the parties where appellants are saying that they are owner of land and on the other hand, Gilla (PW-2) was saying he is the owner and possession holder of the land.

Evidence of Gilla (PW-2) is corroborated by evidence of his two sons only. It is true that merely being sons, evidence will not be discredited. Their credibility has to be assessed on the basis of merit of the statements. Similarly independent corroboration is not a matter of rule, if evidence is worthy of credence then without independent corroboration the witness can be believed.

In view of the medical evidence of Dr. R.C. Malara (PW-7) and MLC report Ex. P-6, it is apparently clear that there had been 7 injuries on the person of Gilla (PW-2). Evidence of Gilia (PW-2) stands duly corroborated by medical evidence. PW-2 has narrated the same version in the FIR also. In so far as conviction of appellants u/s 447, 323 IPC, I see no infirmity in the findings and there appears no ground to interfere in this regard. However, in so far as conviction of appellants u/s 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ ST Act is concerned, as discussed above, ingredients are completely missing in the evidence of Gilla (PW-2). Trial court has failed to appreciate evidence in correct prospective in that respect.

As discussed above, this appeal deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. Conviction of appellants u/s 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(10) SC/ST Act deserves to be and is hereby set aside. Conviction of appellants u/s 447, 323 IPC is affirmed. u/s 447 IPC only fine has been imposed by the trial court, hence sentence u/s 447 IPC is also affirmed.

At this stage it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the appellants that pending appeal, appellants suffered custody period from 14/09/1994 to 22/ 09/1994 and this incident occurred about 18 years ago and outside court compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Hence, no useful purpose would be served in sending the appellants back to jail after such long period.

In view of the totality and facts and circumstances of the case, for an offence u/s 323 IPC, undergone period of 8 days seems to be just, proper and sufficient. However, fine amount is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1000/- each. In default of payment of fine the appellants shall undergo 1 month simple imprisonment Appellants are directed to remain present in the trial court on or before 16th July, 2012 to deposit the balance fine amount or to undergo default sentence as the case may be.

Appeal is allowed in part as indicated above.